MathGroup Archive 2001

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Re: Thickness Isn't Thickness

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg29921] Re: Thickness Isn't Thickness
  • From: "OBrien-Malone" <dot at>
  • Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 03:56:50 -0400 (EDT)
  • Organization: The University of Western Australia
  • References: <9j3agr$iop$>
  • Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at

I don't think Mathematica allows anything similar. I  *always* end up
editing the Mathematica produced EPS output with Illustrator before using
the pictures in publications. I have found it too cumbersome to do anything
else, despite the annoyances of sometimes editing many similar graphs in a
similar way.


Mark R Diamond
Mark R Diamond
Vision Research Laboratory
Department of Psychology
The University of Western Australia

SPAM AVIODING EMAIL:  ... at psy dot edu dot au, address to markd

Disclaimers: The opinions expressed herein are those of
the author, and are not intended to reflect on any
official positon held by The University of Western
Australia generally, the Department of Psychology
specifically, or any other individual
aes wrote in message <9j3agr$iop$1 at>...
>The Line drawing capability in Illustrator allows you to select between
>what are called "butt", "round", or "projecting" caps as "Stroke
>attributes" on the ends of lines.
>Does Mathematica allow anything similar?
>(The Mathematica default seems to be the equivalent of "projecting caps",
>make for problems if you're trying to have a thickened line intersect a
>thinner line or other geometrical figure at 90 degrees, with the
>endpoint of the thicker line located on that figure, as is analytically
>convenient.  The end of the thick line then project through the thinner
>line, which is not wanted.)
>(And one could argue that "Thickness", taken literally, should increase
>the thickness but NOT the length of a line, as Mathematica unfortunately

  • Prev by Date: Re: Placeholders in matrix notation
  • Next by Date: Re: Memory Conservation
  • Previous by thread: Re: Thickness Isn't Thickness
  • Next by thread: Re: Thickness Isn't Thickness